1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree in R.A.Nos.35/2004 and 38/2004 dated 12.1.2010 on the file of the II Additional District Judge at Mysore.

2. Mahadeva is the common appellant in both these appeals. Similarly, Smt. Rangamma and Smt. Lakshmamma are the common respondents. Mahadeva filed O.S.No.266/1997 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mysore, against the respondents for declaring that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the plaint schedule property and that the sale deed dated 23.9.1996 executed by Smt.Rangamma, the first defendant in favour of Smt.Lakshmamma, the second defendant in respect of the suit schedule property is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants or anybody claiming through them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner and in possession of Sy.No.5/2p measuring 22 guntas situated at Maratikyathanahalli village, Mysore Taluk. On 10.5.1994, the first defendant has illegally got transferred the katha of the suit schedule property to her name. The said fact came to his knowledge in September, 1996 when the first defendant started interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Immediately thereafter, he obtained certified copy of the mutation extract and challenged the same by filing an appeal under S.136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act before the Assistant Commissioner in RRT No.28/96-97. During the pendency of the appeal, he has filed the above suit. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of by directing the parties to pursue the suit. It is further contended that on the basis of the said katha, the first defendant has executed the sale deed in favour of the second defendant without having any right over the said property. On the basis of the illegal transaction, the defendants are interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the said property.

3. In response to the summons, the defendants have entered appearance in the suit and have filed their joint written statement admitting that plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule property. It is their case that first defendant has purchased the said property under a Panchayathi Sale Agreement dated 15.3.1992 from the plaintiff and that from the said date till 23.9.1996, the first defendant was in possession of the said property. Thereafter, by virtue of the sale deed executed by her in favour of the second defendant, second defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is contended that after purchase of the land from the plaintiff, the katha of the property was changed to the name of the first defendant on 15.6.1993 with the assistance of the plaintiff. As per the Panchayathi Sale Agreement dated 15.3.1992, the possession of the suit schedule property was given to the first defendant. On several occasions, the first defendant has called upon the plaintiff to execute the sale deed in respect of the said property in her favour and to convey the absolute ownership. However, the plaintiff was not ready and willing to execute and register the sale deed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the relevant issues. The parties have let in evidence in support of their contentions. On appreciation of the materials on record, the trial Court has declared that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant dated 23.9.1996 is null and void. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were directed to hand over possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within three months from the date of the said decree.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed an appeal in R.A.No.35/2004. The plaintiff also filed R.A.No.38/2004 challenging the said judgment and decree on the ground that the trial Court ought t